Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698946650561.pdf (Uganda)
The Theory and Practice of Legislation ISSN: 2050-8840 (Print) 2050-8859 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpl20 A model for determining legislative significance and effectiveness Osnat Akirav To cite this article: Osnat Akirav (2018) A model for determining legislative significance and effectiveness, The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 6:3, 343-361, DOI: 10.1080/20508840.2019.1568774 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2019.1568774 Published online: 08 Feb 2019.
Submit your article to this journal Article views: 38 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtpl20 THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF LEGISLATION 2018, VOL.

6, NO.
6, NO.

3, 343–361 https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2019.1568774 A model for determining legislative signiﬁcance and eﬀectiveness Osnat Akirav Department of Political Science, Western Galilee College, Akko, Israel three components of legislative signiﬁcance are measured: ABSTRACT How do we determine whether laws are signiﬁcant and eﬀective?

To answer this I used data from focus groups and content analysis of laws and question, In this newspaper articles to create a model to assess these two factors.
model, the essence, extent and practicality of the law.

The model also assesses legislative eﬀectiveness by measuring three other components: public awareness about the legislators and the the issue, the gap between the intentions of implementation of the law, and the existentiality of the gap.

In this study, eﬀectiveness refers to achieving the goal of the legislation and is measured several years past after the date it was enacted.

Signiﬁcance and eﬀectiveness are not separate concepts.
They are connected on a time line.

The ﬁrst step in legislation is to understand whether it is signiﬁcant, which leads to the second step – determining whether it is eﬀective.

I tested the model using three Israeli laws from 1987 (the minimum wage law), 1998 (the law against sexual harassment) and 2007 (the provision that outlawed smoking in public places to prevent exposure to second-hand smoke).
The results demonstrate that the model is a useful tool for determining whether laws are signiﬁcant and eﬀective.

KEYWORDS Legislation; essence of legislation; extent of legislation; practicality of legislation; signiﬁcant legislation; eﬀectiveness of legislation 1.
Introduction Scholars have debated about the roles of legislators but agreed that they have three main roles: enacting laws, overseeing the government and representing the people.1 In this paper, I will concentrate on the legislation role, especially the content of it.

Scholars have used phrases such as legislative eﬀectiveness, leg- islative productivity and signiﬁcant legislation.

How do we determine whether laws are signiﬁcant and eﬀective?
Making such determinations are important osnatak@bezeqint.net CONTACT Osnat Akirav College, P.o.b 2125, Akko, Israel 1See Philip Norton, Parliament in British Politics (London.

Macmillan International Higher Education 2013).

See Kaare Strøm, Roles as Strategies: Towards a Logic of Legislative Behavior.

In Parliamentary Roles in Modern Legislatures (London.

Routledge 2015), 111–26.


Department of Political Science, Western Galilee © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 344 O. AKIRAV for indicating to legislators and the government when laws need to be intro- duced or changed.

My goal is to develop a model with which we can assess the signiﬁcance and eﬀectiveness of legislation.

1.1.
1.1.

The legislative process: causes and consequences The ability of legislators to pass legislation was the ﬁrst and most studied measurement of legislators’ productivity.2 The second stage for measuring legislators’ productivity came with the acknowledgment that the process of legislation is as important as the outcome of it.3 Wawro4 suggested the steps of drafting legislation and pushing legislation (in addition to acquiring information and coalition building) as indicative of these two stages.
Cox and Terry5 combined two measurements: counting the number of bills from each legislator that come out of committee and then are passed in a given Congress.

Akirav6 enumerated three stages: (1) the number of bills presented, (2) the number of bills that received a preliminary hearing and (3) the number of bills that became law.

Volden and Wiseman7 deﬁned legislative eﬀectiveness as the proven ability to advance a member’s agenda items through the legis- lative process and into law.
Their deﬁnition consists of four separate com- ponents: proven ability, advancing legislation, members’ agenda items, and progression through the legislative process into law.

Jenkins analysed the ways in which legislative context matters by examining the legislative process in detail including information about legislators, committees, bill sponsorships, co-sponsorships, amendment sponsorship, committee referrals, committee reports and House passage.
Several studies have measured legislators’ productivity using subjective measures or a mix of subjective and objective measures.8 Luttbeg9 determined the validity of the ranking of legislators’ eﬀectiveness based on legislators 2See James C. Garand and Kelly M. Burke, ‘Legislative Activity and the 1994 Republican Takeover: Exploring Changing Patterns of Sponsorship and Cosponsorship in the US House’ (2006) 34(2) American Politics Research 159–88.
See William Howell et al., ‘Divided Government and the Legislative Productivity of Congress, 1945–94’ (2000) Legislative Studies Quarterly 23:285–312.

See Gregory Wawro, Legislative Entrepreneurship in the US House of Representatives (Michigan.

University of Michigan Press 2000).

3See Osnat Akirav, ‘What Do Representatives Produce?

Work Proﬁles of Representatives’ (2016) 22(3) Party Politics 289–99.
See Gary W. Cox and William C. Terry, ‘Legislative Productivity in the 93d–105th Con- gresses’ (2008) 33(4) Legislative Studies Quarterly 603–18.

See Shannon Jenkins, The Context of Legislat- ing: Constraints on the Legislative Process in the United States (New York.

Routledge 2016).

See Craig Volden and Alan E. Wiseman, Legislative Eﬀectiveness in the United States Congress: The Lawmakers (New York.

Cambridge University Press 2014).

4See Wawro (n 2).

5See Cox and Terry (n 3).

6See Akirav (n 3).


7See Volden and Wiseman (n 3).

8See Howell et al.

(n 2).

See Norman R. Luttbeg, ‘The Validity and Electoral Impact of Media Estimations of “Best” or “Worst” State Legislators’ (1992) Legislative Studies Quarterly 17:395–408.

See Gerard Padro I. Miquel and James M. Snyder Jr., ‘Legislative Eﬀectiveness and Legislative Careers’ (2006) 31(3) Legis- lative Studies Quarterly 347–81.

9See Luttbeg (n 8).
9See Luttbeg (n 8).

THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF LEGISLATION 345 themselves, lobbyists, agency heads and capital correspondents.

Miquel and Snyder10 asked legislators, lobbyists and journalists to assess how eﬀective each legislator was during a speciﬁc session, while Howell et al.

created a four-category measure of legislative signiﬁcance based on three corps of elite observers.

In addition to these studies, there are other sub-issues in the literature regarding legislation.
One of these issues is about how governments set their agendas for the legislature.11 The main question on which scholars in this area focus is, does the government have the ability to control the political agenda by delaying or blocking legislation it does not favour?

These scholars, however, do not ask whether the legislation that was blocked or passed was signiﬁcant.

The second question is about explanations for the change in the amount of legislative activity and its output.
Scholars oﬀer several expla- nations for this phenomenon: the number of assistants available to legislators, the party’s cohesiveness and its degree of organisation, legislative procedures that reduce the number of private members’ bills, seniority, and changes in the borders of constituencies.12 The main insight gleaned from these explanations is that the increase in legislation has multiple factors and is a phenomenon shared by legislatures all over the democratic world.
The third area concen- trates on opportunities for co-sponsoring legislation and its consequences.13 Even though the most obvious role of parliament is to legislate, in many countries the government dominates the legislative process and initiates most laws.14 Hence, in this paper, I concentrate on analysing the content of private member bills that were passed.

1.2.

The content of legislation The content of legislation is a neglected area studied by only a handful of scholars.
However, they do oﬀer diﬀerent ways to deﬁne and measure the content of legislation.15 Mayhew16 was the ﬁrst scholar who tried to deﬁne 10See Miquel and Snyder (n 8).

11See Gary W. Cox and Mathew D. McCubbins, Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives (New York.

Cambridge University Press 2005).


See Eric Schickler, ‘Institutional Change in the House of Representatives, 1867–1998: A Test of Partisan and Ideological Power Balance Models’ (2000) 94(2) American Political Science Review 269–88.

12See Holly Marsh and David Marsh, ‘Tories in the Killing Fields?

The Fate of Private Members’ Bills in the 1997 Parliament’ (2002) 8(1) Journal of Legislative Studies 91–112.

See Norton (n 1).
See Norton (n 1).

13See Tom Louwerse and Simon Otjes, ‘The Impact of Parliamentary Specialisation on Cosponsorship’ (2015) 21(4) The Journal of Legislative Studies 476–94.

See James H. Fowler, ‘Connecting the Congress: A Study of Cosponsorship Networks’ (2006) 14(4) Political Analysis 456–87.

14See Kaare Strøm, Wolfgang C. Müller, and Torbjörn Bergman (eds.

), Delegation and Accountability in Par- liamentary Democracies, Vol.

42 (Oxford UK.

Oxford University Press 2006).

See Norton (n 1).


15See D. Mayhew, Divided We Govern (Yale University Press, New Haven 1991).

See Joshua D. Clinton and John S. Lapinski, ‘Measuring Legislative Accomplishment, 1877–1994’ (2006) 50(1) American Journal of Political Science 232–49.

16See Mayhew (n 15).

346 O. AKIRAV the phrase ‘signiﬁcant legislation’.

In order to do so, his methodology used two stages.
Stage one involves contemporary judgments about the content of the laws, and stage two deals with retrospective judgments about the content and the importance of the laws.

The second part completes the ﬁrst part.

Mayhew’s model mapped the policy issues that emerged from the laws and then tried to choose the most important laws for each policy area.

One of his parameters looked for increases in the coverage of the law.
He subdivided this parameter into three possibilities: legislation controversial enough to warrant coverage, legislation with a strong enough impact to warrant coverage, and legislation innovative enough to warrant coverage.

Using this parameter, I chose three laws and analysed them within the pro- posed framework to determine if they are indeed signiﬁcant legislation and how eﬀective they are.
Clinton and Lapinski17 expanded Mayhew’s work using four sets of esti- mates for signiﬁcant legislation: estimates about rater assessments obtained through an item-response model, statute-level estimates of signiﬁcance, measures of legislative accomplishment resulting from the aggregation of the statute-level estimates, and the regression coeﬃcients of the relationship between the characteristics of the legislation and its signiﬁcance.
Even though they used complicated and comprehensive methods to examine signiﬁcant legislation, Clinton and Lapinski18 claimed that any cri- terion used to identify it is imprecise.

I agree with this claim.

However, in this paper, I will try to deﬁne and measure signiﬁcant legislation in a diﬀerent manner than it has been deﬁned in previous studies.
Tsebelis19 deﬁned the variable ‘signiﬁcant laws’ by using the Encyclopedia of Labor Law, which reviews the signiﬁcant legislation in the area (The chap- ters were written by a law professor or a judge).

The use of experts to deﬁne the term ‘signiﬁcant’ and the use of retrospective analysis are similar to Mayhew’s second stage.

Francis and Weber20 preferred the judgment of legis- lators than that of experts as other studies did.
Using a 50-state random sample of legislators, they asked them what they thought were ‘the most important’ issues of their sessions.

They divided the legislators’ answers into ﬁve categories: type of resource, interest in the issue, conﬂict over the issue, short-term outcomes and long-term outcomes.
The framework pre- sented in this paper will use a version of a question Francis and Weber21 asked in their questionnaire: ‘I felt the proposed legislation would have a direct impact on a large number of people’.

The number of people aﬀected 17See Clinton and Lapinski (n 15).

18Ibid.

19See George Tsebelis, ‘Veto Players and Law Production in Parliamentary Democracies: An Empirical Analysis’ (1999) 93(3) American Political Science Review 591–608.
20Wayne L. Francis and Ronald E. Weber, ‘Legislative Issues in the 50 States: Managing Complexity Through Classiﬁcation’ (1980) Legislative Studies Quarterly 5(3):407–21.

21Ibid.

412.

THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF LEGISLATION 347 by a piece of legislation is one of the criteria for deﬁning signiﬁcant legislation.

One of the basic assumptions about legislation is that it is general, rather than speciﬁc to one person or a small group of people.
The generality of a law ensures that the equality principle of democracy is maintained; no one is above the law, and no one is bound by laws unique to him or her.
In the current research I adopt the analytic perspective and judgment of previous studies with several adjustments.22 Furthermore, the model I propose does not use the deﬁnitions or the operational approaches suggested either by Tsebelis23 or by Box-Steﬀensmeier and Grant.24 However, I adopt Dickens’25 criterion of justice and fairness, which he used to examine whether the British Employment Equality law moved from a bill against dis- crimination to one that promoted equality.
Democracy is a very fragile regime, so legislators must work hard to maintain it.

Justice, equality, and freedom are democratic principles that are important to preserve, and the goal of legislation should be to improve them.

Hence, one of the criteria in my proposed framework is the furtherance of democratic principles.

Further- more, the proposed model will use both terms examined by previous scholars: signiﬁcant legislation and legislative eﬀectiveness.

1.3.
1.3.

Developing the model for analysing legislation content Like previous studies,26 this study uses two qualitative techniques: focus groups and content analysis.
The focus groups consisted of political science students (BA and MA students) and were conducted during the last ﬁve years.27 Each focus group was asked three questions: (1) deﬁne your criteria for assessing signiﬁcant legislation, (2) rank the importance of the criteria and explain your reasons for such rankings, and (3) deﬁne your criteria for assessing legislative eﬀectiveness.
I used the results from the focus groups to identify the criteria for signiﬁcant legislation and to create a preliminary ranking of their importance and deﬁne eﬀectiveness.

The second stage of this process was the analysis of 200 laws in order to establish the reliability of the criteria.

I used inter-rater reliability with appraisers, who were given 22See Mayhew (n 9) and Francis and Weber (n 11).

23See Tsebelis (n 10).


24See Janet M. Box-Steﬀensmeier and J. Tobin Grant, ‘All in a Day’s Work: The Financial Rewards of Leg- islative Eﬀectiveness’ (1999) Legislative Studies Quarterly 24:511–23.

25See L. Dickens, ‘The Road Is Long: Thirty Years of Equality Legislation in Britain’ (2007) 45(3) British Journal of Industrial Relations 463–94.

26See Mayhew (n 9), Tsebelis (n 10), and Francis and Weber (n 11).

27On average each focus group had 15 participants.


During the ﬁve years of data collection I used two focus groups with MA degree candidates and two with BA degree candidates.

Thus, in total I had 300 participants for the ﬁrst stage of identifying the criteria for signiﬁcant legislation, creating a prelimi- nary ranking of their importance and deﬁning eﬀectiveness.
Indeed, one can argue that diﬀerent people (a citizen, a judge and an expert) would have completely diﬀerent opinions about a law and its eﬀec- tiveness.

However, analyzing the content of the focus groups yielded several generalizations that accorded with the experts’ opinions.

348 O. AKIRAV guideline sheets (the reliability was 0.79).
I then tested the resulting theoretical framework using three bills that had been passed in the Israeli parliament (Knesset), one from the 1980s, one from the 1990s and one from the 2000s.

2.

Signiﬁcant legislation: criteria The preliminary results show that while it is very diﬃcult to deﬁne speciﬁc criteria with which to measure the signiﬁcance of legislation, the task is not impossible.

Furthermore, there are indeed diﬀerences among various pieces of signiﬁcant legislation.
Analysis of the content of the 200 bills and the answers provided by the focus groups gave me eight criteria by which to deﬁne signiﬁcant legislation: (1) Does the bill advance democratic principles (such as equality, freedom, human rights) (Dickens 2007)?

(2) Is the bill relevant to future generations (does it deal with issues such as the quality of the environment and air pollution)?

(3) Does the bill correct injustice (injustice the government creates or has within its power to change)?
Democracy is a regime that responds to cri- ticism from various sources.

The manner in which the government deals with criticism shows the strength of the democracy.

It is legitimate to say, ‘We were wrong and we want to correct the injustice’.

Justice is an essen- tial issue in a democracy; correcting injustice shows that even though the government made a mistake, it can be ﬁxed.

(4) Does the bill aﬀect a signiﬁcant number of people (is the bill general or speciﬁc to a small group of people)?
Since all people are equal in a democ- racy, the rules should apply to as many people as possible.

When a speciﬁc law is enacted that aﬀects only a small number of people, it creates inequality and injustice.

(5) Does the bill have attendant costs (to the government) and does the legis- lator indicate where the money for meeting those costs will come from (from the government or from the public)?

Laws are the outcomes of gov- ernment policy and legislators’ agendas.
In other words, it is through legislation that the government divides up the budget.

At the same time, it is important to indicate where the money for meeting the costs associated with implementing the law will come from.

Failing to do so makes the proposed legislation appear irresponsible.

(6) Is the bill an entirely new piece of legislation or is it an amendment to a previous bill?

While amendments are important, an entirely new piece of legislation can make a signiﬁcant change.
When the government or the legislators draft a bill, there is a signiﬁcant diﬀerence in the time and the resources they invest if the suggested bill is an amendment or an entirely new piece of legislation.

THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF LEGISLATION 349 (7) Is the bill worded clearly?

Obfuscation might cause diﬀerent interpret- ations of the bill and obscure its original meaning.

(8) Is the bill feasible?

The public will not observe a law if it is diﬃcult or practically impossible to do so.
The answer to each question was ranked on an ordinal scale of ‘1’ not at all, ‘2’ slightly, ‘3’ moderately, ‘4’ to a large extent, and ‘5’ all the time.

In order to create a scale for signiﬁcant legislation, I divided the above criteria into three components: essence, extent and practicality.

Essence deals with the content the bill seeks to improve: advancing democratic principles,28 relevance for future generations, or correcting injustice.
Extent deals with the range and impact of the bill: the number of people who will beneﬁt from it, the costs associated with it, and the generality of the bill.

Practicality deals with the ability to implement the bill: the feasibility of the bill and its wording.

All three components are important in the process of deﬁning signiﬁcant legislation but I gave each component a diﬀerent weight in the framework (based on the answers of the focus groups).
Essence is the most important component; therefore, it is weighted as 50% out of 100% (within the com- ponent I gave a 20% weight for advancing democratic principles and a 20% weight for relevance for future generations, while ameliorating injustice received a 10% weight).

Extent is the second important component; therefore, it was weighted as 30% out of 100% (each answer received 10%).

Practicality is the third important component and was weighted as 20% out of 100% (each answer received 10%).
I multiplied every answer by its weight and then added up all of the components.

The resulting number ranged between ‘1’, indicating no signiﬁcant legislation at all and ‘5’, indicating a very signiﬁcant piece of legislation.

Deﬁning signiﬁcant legislation is the ﬁrst step in creating a com- prehensive picture about legislation.

The second step is determining its eﬀectiveness.

3.
3.

Legislative eﬀectiveness: criteria In this study, legislative eﬀectiveness refers to achieving the goal of the legis- lation.

After a bill has been passed, I explored whether the legislator’s inten- tions had been implemented and whether there was any gap between those intentions and the practice of the law in daily life.
Analysis of the content 28During the development of the scale, I consulted with experts about the better way to score each cri- terion – using dichotomous categories (yes/no) or an ordinal scale (ranging from not at all to all the time).

Most of them advised me to use an ordinal scale because most of the criteria have certain degrees of variation.
350 O. AKIRAV of the 200 bills and the answers provided by the focus groups gave me three criteria by which to deﬁne legislative eﬀectiveness: (1) Does the bill raise awareness of the subject?

One of the goals of legislation is to raise awareness about a speciﬁc subject, increasing the public’s knowledge about the issue and the meaning of the law.
Scholars have indicated that the level of public concern and awareness about issues such as the environment, crime, and healthcare tend to be aﬀected by the amount of media attention they receive.29 Hence, I examined aware- ness using two diﬀerent measurements.
First, I counted the number of articles about the topic that appeared in two newspapers in Israel: Yediot Aharonot, a popular daily with 34% of the market share, and Haaretz, the paper of choice for the intelligentsia, with a 7% market share.30 I also used oﬃcial surveys from the government and academic institutions that asked about the subject, exploring both general knowl- edge about the topic and speciﬁc knowledge about the law.
Indeed, there is no established measure of eﬀectiveness, but I took the approaches used in previous studies experience to measure awareness as a starting point.

(2) Is there a gap between the intentions of the legislator and the implemen- tation of the law?

There will always be a gap between theory and practice, but the question is, how big is the gap and is it large enough to derail the intention behind the law?
(3) Is the gap between the intention behind the law and its implementation so large that it makes the law meaningless?

In other words, is the gap an existential one?

I examined questions two and three using the content analysis of the news- paper articles and the surveys mentioned above.

The answer to each question was ranked on an ordinal scale of ‘1’ not at all, ‘2’ slightly, ‘3’ moderately, ‘4’ to a large extent, and ‘5’ all the time.
Question one about awareness received 30% of the total (based on the focus groups’ answers), while questions two and three about the gap between inten- tion and practice received 70% of the total.

The larger and more existential the gap, the less eﬀective the legislation.

This 70% was divided as follows.


Ques- tion two about the existence of a gap received 40%, while question three 29See William D. Anderson, Janet M. Box-Steﬀensmeier, and Valeria Sinclair-Chapman, ‘The Keys to Leg- islative Success in the US House of Representatives’ (2003) 28(3) Legislative Studies Quarterly 357– 86.

See K. Robb et al., ‘Public Awareness of Cancer in Britain: A Population-Based Survey of Adults’ (2009) 101(S2) British Journal of Cancer S18.
See Yuki Sampei and Midori Aoyagi-Usui, ‘Mass-Media Cov- erage, Its Inﬂuence on Public Awareness of Climate-Change Issues, and Implications for Japan’s National Campaign to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ (2009) 19(2) Global Environmental Change 203–12.

30I counted all of the articles I could locate on the subject, regardless of their position.

The ﬁrst step to awareness is to talk about a subject.
Unfortunately, there are many signiﬁcant issues that go unnoticed or unreported because the media is more interested in breaking news.

However, this measure is just one step, not the only step for measuring awareness.

THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF LEGISLATION 351 received 30%.

Thus, the preliminary framework consists of two concepts: the signiﬁcance of the legislation and its eﬀectiveness.
In order to test the preliminary framework, I examined three Israeli laws from the last 30 years, bills that received a great deal of media attention and ﬁt Mayhew’s criteria.

Furthermore, their subject matter is relevant to many other countries.
These laws are the minimum wage law (1987) (similar to the law used in Dickens’31 study), the legislation passed against sexual harassment (1998) (there is some similarity to the law used in Searles’32 study) and the provision that outlawed smoking in public places to prevent exposure to second-hand smoke (2007) (similar to the laws used in Goodman et al.’s study).

3.1.
3.1.

The Minimum Wage Act (1987)33 As in most developed countries, Israel has regulations about the minimum salary an employer is required to pay to his or her employees.

In Israel, the Minimum Wage Law was passed in 1987.

Since that time, there has been an ongoing debate about the ability to enforce it and the level of the wages (originally calculated by a formula).

The debate about the law encompasses a wide range of scholars.
Socialist groups are in favour of the law regardless of its impact on the economy.

From their point of view, the government must require employers to pay a minimum wage so they cannot exploit their employees.

Capitalist groups are against any government involve- ment regardless of its impact on the economy.

They argue that the market must be a free one and that competition should deﬁne the level of wages.
The disagreement over the minimum wage law focuses on the ability to implement it, its eﬀect on the economy and the ways by which to measure its eﬀect on the economy.

Nevertheless, most of the arguments are theoretical, and only a few are based on empirical research.34 Between 2008 and 2017 the minimum wage in Israel increased by 40% by govern- ment decision.

3.1.1.
3.1.1.

Signiﬁcant legislation I examined this bill in light of my proposed framework to determine if it is indeed a piece of signiﬁcant legislation and is eﬀective.

31See Dickens (n 25).

32See Patricia Searles, ‘The Social and Political Context of Rape Law Reform: An Aggregate Analysis’ (1991) 72 Social Science Quarterly 221.

33For general information about the law, see https://www.anglo-list.com/israel-jobs-and-employment2/ israel-minimum-wage.
34See Jerold L. Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage (University of Illinois Press 2000).

See David Card and Alan B. Krueger, Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage (Princeton University Press, Princeton 1995).

352 O. AKIRAV 3.1.2.

Essence (1) Does the bill advance democratic principles?

Yes, the bill advances the right to earn a living in an honourable manner, thus reinforcing the right of human dignity (5 on the scale).

(2) Is the bill relevant for future generations?


Yes, future generations will have to deal with the same problem of inequality in society, one of whose characteristics is inequitable wages (5 on the scale).

(3) Does the bill correct injustice?

No, in order to correct injustice, the gov- ernment must have created it; in this case, the government was a passive actor (0 on the scale).

3.1.3.

Extent (4) Does the bill aﬀect a signiﬁcant number of people?
Yes, data from the Adva Center show that in 1994 about 27% of employees earned the minimum wage, and in 2002 the number increased to 31.7%, most of them women35 (5 on the scale).

(5) Does the bill have attendant costs (to the government) and does the legislator indicate where the money for meeting those costs will come from (from the government or from the public)?

Yes, the bill does cost the government because the government is the largest employer in the labour market in Israel.
In addition, indirectly, the government is supposed to enforce the law using its enforcement authorities (3 on the scale).

(6) Is the bill an entirely new piece of legislation or is it an amendment to a previous bill?

Yes, it is an entirely new piece of legislation (5 on the scale).

3.1.4.

Practicality (8) Is the bill worded clearly?

Yes, the articles of the bill clearly deﬁne the meaning and terms of the minimum wage and the punishment for an employer who does not comply with it (4 on the scale).
(9) Is the bill feasible?

Yes, the bill is feasible because either the employee receives the minimum wage or he or she does not.

The one weakness in this area is the desire or the ability of the government to enforce the law (4 on the scale).

Adding all of these components together yields a ﬁnal score of 4.1 on a scale of 1 to 5, indicating that the Minimum Wage Act is a signiﬁcant law.

35See http://adva.org/en/.

THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF LEGISLATION 353 3.1.5.


Legislative eﬀectiveness (7) Does the bill raise awareness of the subject?

Yes, between 2000 and 2011 there were 488 articles in Yediot Aharonot about the minimum wage.

Between 1994 and 2011, there were 169 articles in Haaretz on the same subject.
Furthermore, a 2007 survey conducted by the research section of the Industry, Trade and Labor Ministry found that 37% of low-wage employees knew what the minimum wage was, but were less familiar with other details of the law.

Hence, the score for the question is 3 on the scale.

(8) Is there a gap between the intentions of the legislators and the practice of the law?

In order to answer this question, we ﬁrst need to look at the legis- lators’ intentions.

The law had three goals.


The ﬁrst goal was to reduce poverty among employees who receive low salaries.

Second, the law sought to encourage employees to join the work force, which would con- tribute to the growth of the economy.

Third, the law wanted to protect low-paid workers from exploitation by employers.
However, a report by a public committee (2000) charged with analysing the minimum wage law stated that the rate of the compliance with the law was low.36 Reports from the enforcement unit of the Welfare and Labor Ministry showed consistent disregard of the law.

Unfortunately, the gap was not just about enforcing the law, but also about updating the wages.

There- fore, we can say that there is a gap between the legislators’ intentions and the practice of the law.
Hence, the question received 4 on the scale (On the ﬁnal scale, I recoded the scale for this question so that 1 = 5, 2 = 4 and on).

In 2006, the research centre of the Knesset published an analysis of the implementation of the minimum wage law, focusing particularly on employ- ment, poverty and inequality, and a reasonable standard of living.

The research centre noted several problems with regard to the law.

First, other countries are dissatisﬁed with laws of this type and are looking to change them.
Second, some experts have challenged the method of updating the wages (comparing the minimum wage to the average wage instead of to the median wage).

Third, they have questioned whether one receiving a minimum wage can maintain a reasonable standard of living, arguing that many of those who receive only the minimum wage live below the poverty line.

Fourth, critics noted that there is vagueness about the consequences of the minimum wage law.
36See Zvi Eckstein, ‘The Consequences of the Minimum Wage Law on Employment and Wages in Israel’ The Planning Authority for Human Resources, the Welfare and Labor Ministry (Jerusalem 1998).

See Gideon ‘Non-Compliance with the Minimum Wage Law: Theoretical Aspects and Implications for Yaniv, Israel’s Economy’ National Insurance Institute, Research and Development Department, Research Paper (1986) 35.

354 O. AKIRAV Thus, the answer to the third question, is the gap an existential one, is Yes.
However, the gap is a moderate one.

The main problems are about the prac- tice of the law and its adjustment to everyday life, but the essence of the legis- lation still exists and is well-established (3 on the scale).

Thus, the total score for legislative eﬀectiveness is 8.

Adjusting the score to the combined scale (3 questions for each scale of 1 to 5), the ﬁnal score is 2.666 indicating a moderate level of eﬀectiveness.

The minimum wage law is more than 30 years old.


While it is a signiﬁcant law, its eﬀectiveness is medium.

3.2.

The law prohibiting sexual harassment (1998)37 Throughout history, women have suﬀered from sexual harassment, especially from their employers who held a position of power over them.38 Many did not complain and accepted such behaviour as the price they had to pay in order to survive in the labour market.
While the increase in the demand for equal rights raised women’s consciousness about their right not to be harassed, research indicates that between one third and one half of women worldwide have been sexually harassed and that the harassment has multiple and severe consequences.39 Furthermore, sexual harassment is a common phenomenon both in civil organisations40 and military organisations.41 Israel was among the vanguard of countries dealing with this issue, passing legislation against sexual harassment as early as 1998.
In the last few years there has been an increase in the research about the phenomenon in Israel and its consequences.42 However, the enforcement infrastructure is incom- plete.

The main objective of the law is to outlaw sexual harassment formally.

The law oﬀers a broad deﬁnition of the phenomenon, calls for immediate punishment of the oﬀenders, and identiﬁes employers as the parties respon- sible for preventing and dealing with sexual harassment.
Since its enactment, critics have argued that the law is too broad based and draconian, and may lead to unjust accusations resulting from innocent behaviour.

Do the three 37For general information about the law, see http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/State/Law/Pages/ Prevention_of_Sexual_Harassment_Law_5758-1998.aspx.
38See Claudia Avina and William O’Donohue, ‘Sexual Harassment and PTSD: Is Sexual Harassment Diagno- sable Trauma?’ (2002) 15(1) Journal of Traumatic Stress: Oﬃcial Publication of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies 69–75.

39See Kimberly A. Lonsway, Lilia M. Cortina, and Vicki J. Magley, ‘Sexual Harassment Mythology: Deﬁnition, Conceptualization, and Measurement’ (2008) 58(9–10) Sex Roles 599–615.

See Stephen Frantzich, ‘Who Makes Our Laws?


The Legislative Eﬀectiveness of Members of the US Congress’ (1979) Legislative Studies Quarterly 4(3):409–28.

40See S. Gayle Baugh, ‘On the Persistence of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace’ (1997) 16(9) Journal of Business Ethics 899–908.

See Elizabeth A. O’hare and William O’donohue, ‘Sexual Harassment: Identify- ing Risk Factors’ (1998) 27(6) Archives of Sexual Behavior 561–80.
41See Margaret De Judicibus and Marita P. McCabe, ‘Blaming the Target of Sexual Harassment: Impact of Gender Role, Sexist Attitudes, and Work Role’ (2001) 44(7–8) Sex Roles 401–17.

See Louise F. Fitzgerald et al., ‘Measuring Sexual Harassment in the Military: The Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ – DoD)’ (1999) 11(3) Military Psychology 243–63.

42See Nili Tabak and Adi Livneh, ‘Sexual Harassment-Abuse of Flirtation’ (2005) 24 Medicine and Law 479.
THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF LEGISLATION 355 components posited earlier in the paper – essence, extent, and practicality – place the law prohibiting sexual harassment within the category of a signiﬁ- cant piece of legislation?

And how eﬀective is the law?

3.2.1.

Essence (1) Does the bill advance democratic principles?
Yes, Article 1 of the law says, ‘The objective of the law is to forbid sexual harassment in order to protect the right of human dignity, freedom and privacy and to advance equality between genders’ (5 on the scale).

(2) Is the bill relevant for future generations?

Yes, future generations will have to deal with the same problem of inequality in society, one of whose characteristics is gender inequality (5 on the scale).

(3) Does the bill correct injustice?


No, in order to correct injustice, the gov- ernment must have created it; in this case, the government was a passive actor (0 on the scale).

3.2.2.

Extent (4) Does the bill aﬀect a signiﬁcant number of people?

Yes, research con- ducted by the Israeli army shows that 80% of women soldiers are exposed to sexual harassment.
In 2000, the Labor and Welfare Ministry carried out a study indicating that of one million working women ages 20–45, 130,000 had been harassed (5 on the scale).

(5) Does the bill have attendant costs (to the government) and does the legis- lator indicate where the money for meeting those costs will come from (from the government or from the public)?

No, the bill does not cost the government anything directly.
However, indirectly, the government is sup- posed to enforce the law using its enforcement authorities (2 on the scale).

(6) Is the bill an entirely new piece of legislation or is it an amendment to a previous bill?

Yes, it is an entirely new piece of legislation (5 on the scale).

3.2.3.

Practicality (7) Is the bill worded clearly?

Yes, the articles of the bill clearly deﬁne what sexual harassment is, who is responsible at work for preventing it, and what the punishment is for those who break the law.
Furthermore, Kamir43 demonstrates how the law works in everyday life (5 on the scale).

(8) Is the bill feasible?

Yes, the bill is feasible because it deﬁnes exactly who is responsible for its enforcement, where and how.

However, it redeﬁnes the 43See Orit Kamir, ‘Harassed: Living with Israel’s Sexual Harassment Law’ (2009) Jerusalem: Carmel & Haki- butz Hameuchad (in Hebrew).

117-148.

356 O. AKIRAV relationship between men and women, a change that will take time to happen (4 on the scale).
Adding all of these components together yields a ﬁnal score of 4.1 on a scale of 1 to 5, indicating that the Law Prohibiting Sexual Harassment is a signiﬁcant law.

3.2.4.

Legislative eﬀectiveness 1.

Does the bill raise awareness of the subject?

Yes, between 2001 and 2011 there were 1092 articles in Yediot Aharonot about sexual harassment.

Between 1998 and 2011, there were 2121 articles in Haaretz about the same subject.
One of the articles reported that in 2010 there had been a 40% increase in the number of complaints about sexual harassment.

A report from the Association of Help Centers for Victims of Sexual Assault shows that every year since 2003 there have been about 8000 complaints about all kinds of sexual harassment.

Similarly, a 2002 report from the women’s con- sultant for the army’s Chief of Staﬀ noted that 80% of women soldiers were harassed, but just 20% of them ﬁled a complaint.
Furthermore, two update studies about the law found that 69.4% of women had experienced sexual har- assment in the last two years, but just 1.5% of them ﬁled a complaint.44 In the last ﬁve years, both a government minister and the president of the country were accused of sexual harassment and rape, and both were found guilty.

The newspaper and the electronic media covered those two trials exten- sively.
That coverage demonstrated that sexual harassment is an important issue on the public agenda, and the cost the victims paid for the exposure was high.

In sum we can say that while the law has raised awareness of the problem, unfortunately not enough women have ﬁled complaints about it.

In addition, men consider harassment less signiﬁcant than women do.
Furthermore, a report by the Knesset research centre (2010) indicated that 34% of women employees did not know about the sexual harassment law, and 62% of women employees did not know who was in charge of dealing with sexual harassment complaints at their work.

Hence, the answer scores 2 on the eﬀec- tiveness scale.

2.

Is there a gap between the intentions of the legislators and the practice of the law?
As noted above, the intention of the legislators was to forbid sexual harassment formally in order to protect the right of human dignity, freedom and privacy and to advance equality between the genders.
The studies about sexual harassment and the reports of various organisations dealing with the issue show that there is a gap between the intention and the practice of the law, especially with regard to advancing equality between the genders.45 Therefore, we can say that there is a gap between the legislators’ intentions 44Ibid.

45Ibid.

See Tabak (n 31).

THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF LEGISLATION 357 and the practice of the law.
Hence, the question received 3 on the scale (On the ﬁnal scale, I recoded the scale for this question as 1 = 5, 2 = 4 and on).

In 2010, the research centre of the Knesset published an analysis of the implementation of the sexual harassment law using data collected from various organisations in 2009.

The Israel police reported that 3203 ﬁles were opened during 2009 about all kinds of sex crimes.

The civil service com- mission reported 90 complaints of sexual harassment.
All agreed that the actual incidence of these events was far greater than the number reported.

The research centre also noted that enforcement of the law is very low, even though that there are three main oﬃces that handle enforcement and awareness of the law.

In addition, the report pointed out that the various mechanisms established to deal with sexual harassment have been unsuccess- ful in convincing women that there is someone to whom they can address their complaints.
Thus, the answer to the third question, is the gap an existential one, is Yes.

The main problems are about the practice of the law and its adjustment to everyday life, but the essence of the legislation still exists and is well-estab- lished (2 on the scale).

However, the MeToo movement, which began in October 2017, demonstrates the widespread prevalence of sexual harassment.

Since then, the phrase and its meaning have been posted online millions of times.
Thus, the total score of the legislative eﬀectiveness is 3, indicating a mod- erate level of eﬀectiveness.

While the sexual harassment law is just 20 years old, it is a signiﬁcant law, but its eﬀectiveness is medium and should be improved.

3.3.

The law prohibiting smoking in public places and preventing exposure to second-hand smoke (2007)46 The main objective of prohibiting smoking in public places is to protect the non-smoking population from the damage of passive smoke.
Scholars have indicated that secondary smoke is even more dangerous than direct smoke.47 In addition, the prohibition helps smokers reduce the number of cigarettes they smoke.48 Studies show that a comprehensive ban is more eﬀective than a partial one.

Nevertheless, a comprehensive prohibition 46For general information about the law, see: https://www.health.gov.il/English/Topics/KHealth/smoking/ Pages/smoking.aspx.
47See Giovanni Invernizzi et al., ‘Particulate Matter from Tobacco Versus Diesel Car Exhaust: An Educational Perspective’ (2004) 13(3) Tobacco Control 219–21.

See Jonathan P. Winickoﬀ et al., ‘Beliefs about the Health Eﬀects of “Thirdhand” Smoke and Home Smoking Bans’ (2009) 123(1) Pediatrics e74–e79.

48See William N. Evans, Matthew C. Farrelly, and Edward Montgomery, ‘Do Workplace Smoking Bans Reduce Smoking?’ (1999) 89(4) American Economic Review 728–47.
See David T. Levy and Karen ‘A Framework for Evaluating and Improving Clean Indoor Air Laws’ (2001) 7(5) Journal of Friend, Public Health Management and Practice: JPHMP 87–96.

358 O. AKIRAV raises objections from business owners, particularly the proprietors of restau- rants, bars and clubs.

They claim that the ban might reduce their number of customers and negatively impact their livelihood.
However, a study conducted by the World Health Organization49 shows that laws against smoking do not reduce the proﬁtability of such businesses.

In 1983, the Knesset passed a law limiting smoking in public places (public transportation, schools, universities and hospitals).

The range of organisations aﬀected expanded over the years and now includes banks, post oﬃces, super- markets, coﬀee shops, and work places.

In 2007 the law was changed.


Now called The Law Prohibiting Smoking in Public Places and Preventing Exposure to Second-Hand Smoke, its main objective was deﬁned as the desire ‘to prohibit smoking in public places and prevent exposure to smoke, which causes illness and death’ (Article 1).

Until the change in 2007, the law had not deﬁned the manager of a public place as responsible for enforcing the law.

Until that time, the proprietor was just required to post signs that smoking was forbidden.
Making the proprietor responsible for enforcing the law was consistent with legislation in countries such as Ireland (2004), England (2007), Scotland (2006), and the United States (48 out of 50 states have laws prohibiting smoking in public places).

Do the three components posited earlier in the paper – essence, extent, and practicality – place the law prohibiting smoking in public places within the category of a signiﬁcant piece of legislation?

And how eﬀective is the law?

3.3.1.


Essence (1) Does the bill advance democratic principles?

Yes, by preventing smoking in public places, the right to live a healthy life is safeguarded.

Data from the research centre of the Knesset show that in 2008 the direct costs of smoking-related illnesses for health care services were 1.75 billion shekels, 0.25% of the gross national product.
However, on the other hand, some people claim that the law attacks the basic rights of the smokers because it limits their freedom to smoke in public (4 on the scale).

(2) Is the bill relevant for future generations?

Yes, future generations will have to deal with the same problem of people who smoke (5 on the scale).

(3) Does the bill correct injustice?

No, in order to correct injustice, the gov- ernment must have created it; in this case, the government was a passive actor (0 on the scale).
49World Health Organization, WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2011 – Warning about the Dangers of Tobacco (2011).

Available at http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_report/2011/en/index.html.

THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF LEGISLATION 359 3.3.2.

Extent (4) Does the bill aﬀect a signiﬁcant number of people?

Yes, a survey con- ducted by the Ministry of Health in 2009 shows that 22.8% of the adults in Israel smoke, while 77.2% do not.
In 2003, 10,000 people in Israel died from problems caused by smoking, part of 4 million all over the world.

Despite the decline in the number of smokers, the statistics are high, particularly considering the fact that 40% of teenagers have tried smoking (5 on the scale).

(5) Does the bill have attendant costs (to the government) and does the legis- lator indicate where the money for meeting those costs will come from (from the government or from the public)?
No, the bill does not cost the government anything directly.

However, indirectly, the government is supposed to enforce the law using its enforcement authorities (2 on the scale).

(6) Is the bill an entirely new piece of legislation or is it an amendment to a previous bill?

No, it is an amendment to an existing law, but an important amendment for two reasons.

First, it expands the public places where people are prohibited from smoking.
Second, it makes the management of the public place responsible for enforcing the law (3 on the scale).

3.3.3.

Practicality (7) Is the bill worded clearly?

Yes, the articles of the bill clearly deﬁne where it is forbidden to smoke, who is responsible, and what the punishment is for those who break the law (5 on the scale).

(8) Is the bill feasible?

Yes, the bill is feasible because it deﬁnes exactly who is responsible for its enforcement, where and how.
However, the law is diﬃcult to enforce, especially in pubs (4 on the scale).

Adding all of these components together yields a ﬁnal score of 3.7 on a scale of 0 to 5, indicating that the law prohibiting smoking in public places is a signiﬁ- cant law.

3.3.4.

Legislative eﬀectiveness (1) Does the bill raise awareness of the subject?

Yes, but less so than the other laws discussed earlier.

Between 2001 and 2011, there were 72 articles in Yediot Aharonot about prohibiting smoking in public.
Between 2007 and 2011, there were 30 articles in Haaretz about the same subject.

Public surveys show that there is an increase in public support for prohi- biting smoking in public, with 76% agreeing with the law.

Among 360 O. AKIRAV smokers there is less support; just 46% of them agreed that smoking should be prohibited in public places50 (4 on the scale).

(2) Is there a gap between the intention of the legislators and the practice of the law?
As noted above, the intention of the legislators was to prohibit smoking in public places and prevent exposure to smoke, which causes illness and death.

There is a gap regarding the enforcement of the law, especially in pubs, but the intention of the legislators is well-established.

People increasingly comment on those who smoke in public, and more public places have very clear instructions about where smokers can smoke and where it is prohibited.
Hence, the question received 2 on the scale (On the ﬁnal scale, I recoded the scale for this question as 1 = 5, 2 = 4 and on).

In light of the above, the answer to the third question, is the gap existential, is No.

The main problem is establishing eﬀective enforcement, especially in pubs (2 on the scale).

Thus, the total score of the legislative eﬀectiveness is 4, indicating a high degree of eﬀectiveness.
The law Prohibiting Smoking in Public Places and Pre- venting Exposure to Second-Hand Smoke is just 4 years old, but the analysis shows that it is both a signiﬁcant and eﬀective law.

Analysis of these three laws enacted over the last 30 years indicates that they are signiﬁcant pieces of legislation, and most of them are eﬀective at least at a moderate level.
Furthermore, the analysis demonstrates that the pro- posed framework for identifying and measuring the signiﬁcance and eﬀective- ness of legislation is a viable one.

4.

Epilogue Mattson51 argued that political institutions are important, because they con- tribute to the determination of the social order.

The government’s and the legislators’ right to initiate legislation and propose amendments to bills is institutionalised in the constitutional rules and parliamentary practices in most democracies.
Clinton and Lapinski52 strengthened Mattson’s contention by noting that studying policymaking is critical if we are to assess how well a political system is working.

Indeed, governments, legislators, political scien- tist, jurists and the public should examine existing legislation from time to time in order to see whether the initial intention of the law still exists and whether the law should be adjusted or even repealed.
50See Nati Perelman, Prohibited Smoking in Public Legislation – Comparative Perspective (The Research Center of the Knesset, Jerusalem 2011).

51See Ingvar Mattson, ‘Private Members’ Initiatives and Amendments’ (1995) Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe (New York: St. Martin’s Press ) 448–87.

52See Clinton and Lapinski (n 15).

THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF LEGISLATION 361 The question I focused on is how to make these assessments.
I believe it is essential to create the tools with which to investigate the content of proposed legislation to determine its signiﬁcance and eﬀectiveness.

While the frame- work I presented here is a preliminary one, much more should be done to explore this issue.
We can argue about the methods, we can argue about the questions, we can argue about their weights, we can ﬁnd diﬀerences between countries, but this paper presents the ﬁrst step for understanding the content of legislation all over the world, and, as a result, understanding political institutions and assessing how well a given political system is working.

Disclosure statement No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the author.